![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added the information on Phelps' untimely demise. According to CNN, he killed himself. Wow.
Deleting the painfully obviously false live-journal link. If you really thought that was one of Phelps' offspring you're sadly mistaken. 216.7.248.254
I really think this should be changed back to "Rev. Fred Phelps." It is a more specific title and what he is usually referred to as, and it distinguishes on the off chance there is another "Fred Phelps" of note. -EB-
As much as I hate my neighbor Fred, reality is that picketing funcerals and such isn't their SOLE function. They do HAVE worship services, and they also picket daily on streetcorners around Topeka... NPOV... Rick Boatright 01:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
"deplors her"? He can't even spell his hate speech right? -- Zoe
I assume that there weren't links to his websites because people don't want to give his websites more acknowledgement than is absolutely necessary. Which is something I agree with. I think also (although this could very well be wrong) that search engines will make his site more prominent in their listings if it finds links to it, something else which I think we should avoid. I guess I'm sailing merrily into NPOV issues here but I don't really think we should be doing anything to encourage traffic towards his sites. If you disagree then feel free to change them back, I won't re-edit it. Thanks Ams80 14:16 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
Would an external links section containing godhatesfags.com, godlovesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com be agreeable? AxelBoldt 17:40 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com really should be their own articles. If I had more time today, I'd jump right on it. Please take the initiative :) Kingturtle 21:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I've done godhatesamerica.com, have a look, comments welcome. Evercat 21:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Phelps's group also planned a protest at the funeral of David Charlebois..." This is a teaser. Did they protest? If so why mention the planning. If not what stopped them? Rich Farmbrough 12:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Problems with recent edits:
- Seth Mahoney 23:37, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
a later statement that he's been denounced by Christians of "virtually every affiliation" for hate speech. I'd suggest "infamous" be substituted for "highly controversial". -- Chaser 06:53, Jan 7, 2006
Is it worth noting that Phelps's site claims "Gospel truth", but cites only OT books and epistles (i.e., no gospels at all) condemning homosexuality? There are citations to gospel verses, but none AFAICT refer to homosexuality at all. It seems to me worth noting that, despite his claims, Phelps cannot give any evidence that Christ (as opposed to Paul or the OT writers who also condemned eating pork) had anything at all to say about homosexuality. -- Tkinias 10:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fred Phelps does not use the title "reverend". He uses the title "pastor".
The reason for this is that the only Biblical use of reverend is used to refer to God and no human.
This swine should not be accorded any religious titles. For those of you who wants to add Rev., or Pastor to his name, three words for you: Check Your Sanity.
Answer KJV: Psalms 111:9 - He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
He may not deserve the titles, but plenty of people don't want to call Jesus of Nazerth Christ either. yet, its a title he has been given.-- Tznkai 07:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I seem to remember that Phelps was opposed to Tarja Halonen being elected as president of Finland, because of her former job as editor of a sexual equality magazine. Can anyone confirm this? — JIP | Talk 10:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Phelps is a cult leader; he is the leader of Westboro Baptist Church, a cult. Per dictionaty.com:
Cult
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The family lives in a fenced in, military style compound, and are totally subservient to their authoritarian, charismatic leader.... Fred Phelps.
Whether or not it is a cult, there is only 1 person making that decision. Until then, he is designated a leader, be it a cult or a club. Who 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This picture is so bad, it's biased. He looks evil, and though I think he is idiot, this photo should be changed.
I know people love piling on here and calling Phelps names - after all, he's despicable. Nevertheless I will ask for you to cite sources before making claims such as "a group of WBC congregants were welcomed upon their arrival in Iraq by radical Muslims shouting anti-American slogans". I couldn't find an account of their visit, and it seems unlikely that they were greeted by "radical Muslims" given that Iraq is a secular country. There is also certainly a more religiously sensitive way of saying it, if it turns out to be true. Rhobite 04:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Although not as pronounced as their views on homosexuality, the Westboro Baptist Church appears to espouse a form of racism. However, their racist rhetoric is often a reaction to an opposition to their anti-homosexual speech by a racially-oriented organization.
This text was deleted earlier by BlueGlowGuardian, reasons unstated, assuming because of POV.
This could use some cites. -- Tznkai 04:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I really do apologize for deleting without summaries. I changed "Anti-Mexican" racism to "anti-Hispanic racism" because Mexicans alone are not a race, but a nationality. -- BlueGlowGuardian 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
"Hispanics" are not a race either. Michael Voytinsky 07:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Also if you look closer, I didn't delete the text but moved it. There was no point of view involved. -- BlueGlowGuardian 06:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are some internal discrepancies, e.g., he owed the candy company $20,000 in 1995, or in excess of $125,000.
User:70.243.35.89 has been improving on the article. From what I can tell, it seemed NPOV and mostly layout and information related. However, blanking out entire sections and not discussing or citing references may become an issue. The sections (September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia) and (Theology) were completely removed. Some of the previous edits went to
Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka), but these gave no explanation.
<>Who ?¿? 20:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's fair. I'll fix it back up with sources cited and reasons for moving info.
The article on his links to the Democrats can be seen as an NPOV violation. It might be used in a negative way to show the Republicans in a more positive light. I suggest that it should be removed.
You want factual information removed for the sake of partisan politics? This is an encyclopedia, not Congress. Fred Phelps Jr. and Westboro had strong ties to Al Gore, and Fred Sr. has been a registered democrat for years. These things are true and verifiable, and play a large part in who these people are, good or bad. Just because someone might take offense doesn't make it NPOV. 65.71.127.228 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Phelps' oldest son, Fred Jr. was invited to the first Clinton-Gore inauguration in 1993.
was Fred Sr invited?
someone needs to check out the SPLC info
I get the feeling that the writer of htis article is somewhat less than fond of Freddie. Manticore 02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It's probably the least-biased thing you'll find about him on the internet (and when I say bias, I mean positive or negative; certainly, Westboro, Christian Identity, and the Aryan Nation have only good things to say). There's real background here on him, which most of his critics will never tell you about, namely the deaths of his aunt and mother, his accomplishments as a youth, and the early years of his ministry. I (and others) have worked with what information is availible about him and tried to come up with an unbiased biography. There are some people out there who just don't give you many good things about themself to work with. 65.71.127.228 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I am very sad for Phelps because his heart has no love in it, and it grieves me that he acts with such hatred toward people who also were created by God in His image, I am willing to support removal of the category, "LGBT rights opposition", strictly on the basis that this category can be applied without thought to those who, in direct contrast to Phelps, oppose "LGBT rights" on the basis of their personal belief that it would prolong "LGBT" individuals' division from God, maintaining an obstacle to God's desire to reconcile them to Himself.
This is a subjective category. Since it can be, and in my opinion has been, applied inappropriately to those who (unlike Phelps) obey the Great Commandment and love homosexuals as well, I prefer that the category be deleted.
GBC 00:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, if its "inapproriate" to refer to the "loving" opponents by this category, then wouldn't that imply that Phelps is the "appropriate" kind of person to apply the category to? Or should we not designate anyone by this cat? Carolynparrishfan 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The wording in this section is currently a bit confusing, but I'm not sure how to correct it. The relevant part of Phelp's letter appears to be:
If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future.
Did Saddam's reply specifically mention Phelp's children, or did he grant the request as stated, namely for any delegation from Westboro Baptist Church?
Woseph 20:23:49, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
I deleted some speculation to the effect of "since Phelps owned a bunch of books about the Renaissance, the biographies his kids claim he wrote are probably well researched and thought out." The man thought that Truman Capote gave JFK AIDS by playing football with him. I'd say you need to read these books before jumping to a conclusion like that.
This article looks pretty good, and seems very comprehensive. Do you think it might be a featured article candidate? Djbrianuk 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I've heard anywhere from 75-200.
Hall Monitor, did you even read the article before you sent me a message accusing me of vandalism, threatened to have me banned, and RVed my edits? Fred Phelps delivered a sermon on October 2nd, 2005, in which he accused George Bush of masturbating horses. This was already written in the article before I edited it! All I did was:
1) Changed "president of the United States" to specify Bush 2) Moved the quote to a more appropriate place within the paragraph
All you did by RVing my edit was change Bush back to "president" and move the quote. 70.243.32.96 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This is out of context. Recall that Laura Bush had recently joked that George Bush had tried to milk a male horse at his ranch. Obviously, Phelps was referencing that. This is just typical Phelps vileness, not senile dementia.
That is true. | 15th paragraph. BabuBhatt 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Some folks have objected, that someone like Phelps does not deserve such an extensive article, which may serve merely to publicize him. As the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
And it's true, every time I see a new item about Phelps and his antics, I wonder if Phelps really cares about how atrocious he is, as long as he gets coverage. And I wonder if Phelps really does qualify as news, beyond the media's quest for the lurid. So in this regard, one might question the value of any article on this puke.
One good precedent is Hitler. There have been many really fine books written about Hitler, and they leave no doubt as to his evil. Nevertheless, so fascinated by Hitler and the Nazis, and despite my revulsion at their evil, I find myself replaying Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will for its visceral appeal. So I wonder: if Nazis can have such an effect on one who fancies himself in control of his animal impulses, could this quasi-Nazi Phelps likewise appeal to those who are unrestrained in giving vent to their visceral urges, much like animals who perform analingus because they can. Regardless of merit, does this article rate a single gay bashing it may provoke?
When I saw the length of this article, I was a bit dismayed for the above reasons. Then, I read it. The authors and editors have creatied a very well-informed and well-documented article on Fred Phelps. It is certainly a good candidate for Featured Article. Should anyone find exculpatory documentation or wish to present "the other side," that's what wiki is for. The claim that the article is subjective because Phelps is pure controversy is nonsense. Phelps is to homophobia as Hitler is to anti-Semitism. They are both examples of pernicious notions when carried to logical (or illogical) extremes, and for this, their coverage is justified if for no other reason than edification. In articles about terrorism or the Holocaust, we are not required to present the side of mass murderers, just to achieve balance.
For Alan Bullock's Hitler, a Study in Tyranny, we might call this article, "Fred Phelps, a Study in Hatred".
Withdrawn where? The religious debate? The media coverage? Wikipedia itself?
If it's Wikipedia itself, who has the authority to honor such requests for withdrawal? Anyone could add the name. Is this information readily available in external sources or not? If it is, how do we justify not citing them? (If it is not, we don't need justification for leaving it out; Wikipedia is not a primary source and we don't add "facts" just because they exist.)
If the information is deemed unencyclopedic (I could see this) we should just remove the "name withdrawn by request" phrase. We're not made to look better by confessing that we have the information but are censoring ourselves. JRM · Talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Phelps isn't Finnish—how could he possibly commit treason against Finland? Does Finland have a different definition of "treason" or is another crime intended here? Defacement of the national flag could be a crime in itself, but then no treason would be involved for foreigners. JRM · Talk 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding an image from a 2004 Topeka City Council meeting as the main image, vs. the 2001 image from his webpage. It's more recent of a photo (he's changed a bit in the ensuing years), and it also demonstrates some of the physical malformities mentioned in the "Health" entry. Mistergrind 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks damn creepy. I think the other ones were a little less unsettling (albeit, just a bit). -- User:Medico_Dimamico
The main article states that Fred et al. have been arrested numerous times in Canada. This, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case. A group of his followers (but not Fred) did visit Canada to protest, and did have their signs taken a way at customs, and did have a hotel concel their registration after they found out more about their guests. But no arrests.
Unless someone can provide backing to the arrests, that section needs to be drastically altered. Michael Voytinsky 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, Phelps has claimed his congregation and he have been arrested in Canada in this interview with Dan Kapelovitz: http://www.kapelovitz.com/phelps.htm -- Medico Dinamico
This sentence rings a little of POV, unless sourced:
Is there a source for the "forced" wording? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
When exactly did Fred Say that Dubya worships Mr. Peanut?
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added the information on Phelps' untimely demise. According to CNN, he killed himself. Wow.
Deleting the painfully obviously false live-journal link. If you really thought that was one of Phelps' offspring you're sadly mistaken. 216.7.248.254
I really think this should be changed back to "Rev. Fred Phelps." It is a more specific title and what he is usually referred to as, and it distinguishes on the off chance there is another "Fred Phelps" of note. -EB-
As much as I hate my neighbor Fred, reality is that picketing funcerals and such isn't their SOLE function. They do HAVE worship services, and they also picket daily on streetcorners around Topeka... NPOV... Rick Boatright 01:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
"deplors her"? He can't even spell his hate speech right? -- Zoe
I assume that there weren't links to his websites because people don't want to give his websites more acknowledgement than is absolutely necessary. Which is something I agree with. I think also (although this could very well be wrong) that search engines will make his site more prominent in their listings if it finds links to it, something else which I think we should avoid. I guess I'm sailing merrily into NPOV issues here but I don't really think we should be doing anything to encourage traffic towards his sites. If you disagree then feel free to change them back, I won't re-edit it. Thanks Ams80 14:16 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
Would an external links section containing godhatesfags.com, godlovesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com be agreeable? AxelBoldt 17:40 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com really should be their own articles. If I had more time today, I'd jump right on it. Please take the initiative :) Kingturtle 21:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I've done godhatesamerica.com, have a look, comments welcome. Evercat 21:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Phelps's group also planned a protest at the funeral of David Charlebois..." This is a teaser. Did they protest? If so why mention the planning. If not what stopped them? Rich Farmbrough 12:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Problems with recent edits:
- Seth Mahoney 23:37, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
a later statement that he's been denounced by Christians of "virtually every affiliation" for hate speech. I'd suggest "infamous" be substituted for "highly controversial". -- Chaser 06:53, Jan 7, 2006
Is it worth noting that Phelps's site claims "Gospel truth", but cites only OT books and epistles (i.e., no gospels at all) condemning homosexuality? There are citations to gospel verses, but none AFAICT refer to homosexuality at all. It seems to me worth noting that, despite his claims, Phelps cannot give any evidence that Christ (as opposed to Paul or the OT writers who also condemned eating pork) had anything at all to say about homosexuality. -- Tkinias 10:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fred Phelps does not use the title "reverend". He uses the title "pastor".
The reason for this is that the only Biblical use of reverend is used to refer to God and no human.
This swine should not be accorded any religious titles. For those of you who wants to add Rev., or Pastor to his name, three words for you: Check Your Sanity.
Answer KJV: Psalms 111:9 - He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
He may not deserve the titles, but plenty of people don't want to call Jesus of Nazerth Christ either. yet, its a title he has been given.-- Tznkai 07:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I seem to remember that Phelps was opposed to Tarja Halonen being elected as president of Finland, because of her former job as editor of a sexual equality magazine. Can anyone confirm this? — JIP | Talk 10:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Phelps is a cult leader; he is the leader of Westboro Baptist Church, a cult. Per dictionaty.com:
Cult
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The family lives in a fenced in, military style compound, and are totally subservient to their authoritarian, charismatic leader.... Fred Phelps.
Whether or not it is a cult, there is only 1 person making that decision. Until then, he is designated a leader, be it a cult or a club. Who 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This picture is so bad, it's biased. He looks evil, and though I think he is idiot, this photo should be changed.
I know people love piling on here and calling Phelps names - after all, he's despicable. Nevertheless I will ask for you to cite sources before making claims such as "a group of WBC congregants were welcomed upon their arrival in Iraq by radical Muslims shouting anti-American slogans". I couldn't find an account of their visit, and it seems unlikely that they were greeted by "radical Muslims" given that Iraq is a secular country. There is also certainly a more religiously sensitive way of saying it, if it turns out to be true. Rhobite 04:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Although not as pronounced as their views on homosexuality, the Westboro Baptist Church appears to espouse a form of racism. However, their racist rhetoric is often a reaction to an opposition to their anti-homosexual speech by a racially-oriented organization.
This text was deleted earlier by BlueGlowGuardian, reasons unstated, assuming because of POV.
This could use some cites. -- Tznkai 04:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I really do apologize for deleting without summaries. I changed "Anti-Mexican" racism to "anti-Hispanic racism" because Mexicans alone are not a race, but a nationality. -- BlueGlowGuardian 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
"Hispanics" are not a race either. Michael Voytinsky 07:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Also if you look closer, I didn't delete the text but moved it. There was no point of view involved. -- BlueGlowGuardian 06:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are some internal discrepancies, e.g., he owed the candy company $20,000 in 1995, or in excess of $125,000.
User:70.243.35.89 has been improving on the article. From what I can tell, it seemed NPOV and mostly layout and information related. However, blanking out entire sections and not discussing or citing references may become an issue. The sections (September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia) and (Theology) were completely removed. Some of the previous edits went to
Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka), but these gave no explanation.
<>Who ?¿? 20:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's fair. I'll fix it back up with sources cited and reasons for moving info.
The article on his links to the Democrats can be seen as an NPOV violation. It might be used in a negative way to show the Republicans in a more positive light. I suggest that it should be removed.
You want factual information removed for the sake of partisan politics? This is an encyclopedia, not Congress. Fred Phelps Jr. and Westboro had strong ties to Al Gore, and Fred Sr. has been a registered democrat for years. These things are true and verifiable, and play a large part in who these people are, good or bad. Just because someone might take offense doesn't make it NPOV. 65.71.127.228 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Phelps' oldest son, Fred Jr. was invited to the first Clinton-Gore inauguration in 1993.
was Fred Sr invited?
someone needs to check out the SPLC info
I get the feeling that the writer of htis article is somewhat less than fond of Freddie. Manticore 02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It's probably the least-biased thing you'll find about him on the internet (and when I say bias, I mean positive or negative; certainly, Westboro, Christian Identity, and the Aryan Nation have only good things to say). There's real background here on him, which most of his critics will never tell you about, namely the deaths of his aunt and mother, his accomplishments as a youth, and the early years of his ministry. I (and others) have worked with what information is availible about him and tried to come up with an unbiased biography. There are some people out there who just don't give you many good things about themself to work with. 65.71.127.228 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I am very sad for Phelps because his heart has no love in it, and it grieves me that he acts with such hatred toward people who also were created by God in His image, I am willing to support removal of the category, "LGBT rights opposition", strictly on the basis that this category can be applied without thought to those who, in direct contrast to Phelps, oppose "LGBT rights" on the basis of their personal belief that it would prolong "LGBT" individuals' division from God, maintaining an obstacle to God's desire to reconcile them to Himself.
This is a subjective category. Since it can be, and in my opinion has been, applied inappropriately to those who (unlike Phelps) obey the Great Commandment and love homosexuals as well, I prefer that the category be deleted.
GBC 00:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, if its "inapproriate" to refer to the "loving" opponents by this category, then wouldn't that imply that Phelps is the "appropriate" kind of person to apply the category to? Or should we not designate anyone by this cat? Carolynparrishfan 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The wording in this section is currently a bit confusing, but I'm not sure how to correct it. The relevant part of Phelp's letter appears to be:
If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future.
Did Saddam's reply specifically mention Phelp's children, or did he grant the request as stated, namely for any delegation from Westboro Baptist Church?
Woseph 20:23:49, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
I deleted some speculation to the effect of "since Phelps owned a bunch of books about the Renaissance, the biographies his kids claim he wrote are probably well researched and thought out." The man thought that Truman Capote gave JFK AIDS by playing football with him. I'd say you need to read these books before jumping to a conclusion like that.
This article looks pretty good, and seems very comprehensive. Do you think it might be a featured article candidate? Djbrianuk 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I've heard anywhere from 75-200.
Hall Monitor, did you even read the article before you sent me a message accusing me of vandalism, threatened to have me banned, and RVed my edits? Fred Phelps delivered a sermon on October 2nd, 2005, in which he accused George Bush of masturbating horses. This was already written in the article before I edited it! All I did was:
1) Changed "president of the United States" to specify Bush 2) Moved the quote to a more appropriate place within the paragraph
All you did by RVing my edit was change Bush back to "president" and move the quote. 70.243.32.96 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This is out of context. Recall that Laura Bush had recently joked that George Bush had tried to milk a male horse at his ranch. Obviously, Phelps was referencing that. This is just typical Phelps vileness, not senile dementia.
That is true. | 15th paragraph. BabuBhatt 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Some folks have objected, that someone like Phelps does not deserve such an extensive article, which may serve merely to publicize him. As the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
And it's true, every time I see a new item about Phelps and his antics, I wonder if Phelps really cares about how atrocious he is, as long as he gets coverage. And I wonder if Phelps really does qualify as news, beyond the media's quest for the lurid. So in this regard, one might question the value of any article on this puke.
One good precedent is Hitler. There have been many really fine books written about Hitler, and they leave no doubt as to his evil. Nevertheless, so fascinated by Hitler and the Nazis, and despite my revulsion at their evil, I find myself replaying Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will for its visceral appeal. So I wonder: if Nazis can have such an effect on one who fancies himself in control of his animal impulses, could this quasi-Nazi Phelps likewise appeal to those who are unrestrained in giving vent to their visceral urges, much like animals who perform analingus because they can. Regardless of merit, does this article rate a single gay bashing it may provoke?
When I saw the length of this article, I was a bit dismayed for the above reasons. Then, I read it. The authors and editors have creatied a very well-informed and well-documented article on Fred Phelps. It is certainly a good candidate for Featured Article. Should anyone find exculpatory documentation or wish to present "the other side," that's what wiki is for. The claim that the article is subjective because Phelps is pure controversy is nonsense. Phelps is to homophobia as Hitler is to anti-Semitism. They are both examples of pernicious notions when carried to logical (or illogical) extremes, and for this, their coverage is justified if for no other reason than edification. In articles about terrorism or the Holocaust, we are not required to present the side of mass murderers, just to achieve balance.
For Alan Bullock's Hitler, a Study in Tyranny, we might call this article, "Fred Phelps, a Study in Hatred".
Withdrawn where? The religious debate? The media coverage? Wikipedia itself?
If it's Wikipedia itself, who has the authority to honor such requests for withdrawal? Anyone could add the name. Is this information readily available in external sources or not? If it is, how do we justify not citing them? (If it is not, we don't need justification for leaving it out; Wikipedia is not a primary source and we don't add "facts" just because they exist.)
If the information is deemed unencyclopedic (I could see this) we should just remove the "name withdrawn by request" phrase. We're not made to look better by confessing that we have the information but are censoring ourselves. JRM · Talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Phelps isn't Finnish—how could he possibly commit treason against Finland? Does Finland have a different definition of "treason" or is another crime intended here? Defacement of the national flag could be a crime in itself, but then no treason would be involved for foreigners. JRM · Talk 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding an image from a 2004 Topeka City Council meeting as the main image, vs. the 2001 image from his webpage. It's more recent of a photo (he's changed a bit in the ensuing years), and it also demonstrates some of the physical malformities mentioned in the "Health" entry. Mistergrind 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks damn creepy. I think the other ones were a little less unsettling (albeit, just a bit). -- User:Medico_Dimamico
The main article states that Fred et al. have been arrested numerous times in Canada. This, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case. A group of his followers (but not Fred) did visit Canada to protest, and did have their signs taken a way at customs, and did have a hotel concel their registration after they found out more about their guests. But no arrests.
Unless someone can provide backing to the arrests, that section needs to be drastically altered. Michael Voytinsky 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, Phelps has claimed his congregation and he have been arrested in Canada in this interview with Dan Kapelovitz: http://www.kapelovitz.com/phelps.htm -- Medico Dinamico
This sentence rings a little of POV, unless sourced:
Is there a source for the "forced" wording? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
When exactly did Fred Say that Dubya worships Mr. Peanut?